Alert readers will have noticed that the Conservatives and most of the right-wing press have recently embarked on a hyperbolic campaign against the Scottish Government’s “named person” child-protection legislation. The latest assault is in today’s Daily Mail:

The shriekingly furious lead article thunders in outrage that “nearly two thirds of Scots have condemned the SNP’s state guardian scheme as an ‘unacceptable intrusion’ into family life”, which sounds like a pretty damning verdict.

That’s nearly unreadable, so we’ve transcribed it below. Make a sandwich, you might need a break halfway through it:

“The Scottish Government is introducing the ‘Named Person Scheme’, where every child will be assigned a health visitor or teacher tasked with monitoring that child’s ‘wellbeing’.

The external Named Person is expected to look at various aspects of family life, including whether parents argue, whether the child misses GP or dental appointments, whether they enjoy spending time with their parents and whether the child is consulted before major family decisions are made.

The Scottish Government claims that the scheme will’work with children, young people and their families to get the help they need, when they need it’.

However, opponents of the scheme, including the Scottish Parent Teacher Council, argue that the Named Person represents an unwelcome intrusion which effectively turns the State into a co-parent. Somebelieve that aspects of the Scottish scheme may eventually be rolled out across the whole of the UK.

Taking the information that you have read on the previous screen into account, do you agree or disagree with each of the following statements about the ‘Named Person Scheme’?”

So that’s not a biased, leading question at all. But it gets much worse.

Again that’s hard to read, so to save you clicking we’ll blow part of it up:

So what the Mail describes as “nearly two-thirds of Scots” is in fact ONE HUNDRED AND TEN PEOPLE, taken from an unweighted Scottish sub-sample of just 181.

(“Unweighted” in this context means that unlike in a proper Scotland-wide poll there’s been no attempt made to have the sub-sample form a representative balance of the Scottish population. Every single one of those 181 people could be a male Tory-voting pensioner from Kirkcudbright.)

The number who object to the imposition of a “named person” is even lower: 91.

And the number of the 181 Scottish respondents who were actually parents? 44.

Yet at the very end of the article the Mail claims that “ComRes polled 523 adults in Scotland”. As far as we can make out that’s a flat-out lie. The poll was UK-wide and sampled 2030 people in total, so over a quarter being from Scotland would have been absurdly unrepresentative, and the actual ComRes tables say 181 all the way through.

Even if it had been 523, that’d be a very suspect poll – a properly weighted 1000 is generally considered the minimum halfway-reliable figure for polling. 523 unweighted (as subsamples nearly always are) would be basically worthless. But an unweighted subsample of barely a third that many is some way beneath the level of “farcical joke”.

(The only occurrence of the figure 523 we can find in the poll is the number of women in the UK who, on a scale of 1-10 for how much nurses should be responsible for the general wellbeing of children, gave a score of between 4 and 7.)

Firstly, the Mail tells lies routinely. So when they say anything, it’s highly unlikely to be accurate.

“The unholy alliance of Tories, right-wing hacks and mad fundamentalist religious loonies ranged against the legislation aren’t going to let minor things like the truth get in the way of their latest “SNPBAD” witch-hunt.”

It is interesting that as ‘moderate Unionism’ disappears, we are left with the Union in Scotland being defended by a bunch of seriously right wing nutters who wouldn’t be out of place at a White Supremists gathering in Alabama.

The LoonyYoonyRight seems to be rising as the main opposition to Indy, which is not a bad thing. It will concentrate the minds of the undecided! We may not have liked Brown, Darling etc but they had wider appeal that the Union’s emerging champions.

I was a Named Person for years in ASN schools. It is a brilliant system designed to support children in time of need. It is in no way intrusive & is only ever activated if a child or their family need support. I would be very happy for my children to have a Named Person if they were still of school age.

Those being proposed as Named Persons are amongst the many already in contact with children.

This is simply a potential reduction in workload given in many cases there’s a duplication of effort of this diligently keeping track. Although without coordination there’s a risk that said duplication in some areas is at the cost of missing others.

Taking this to extremes the mentioning of pre natal monitoring with all it’s nasty implications should also ring alarm bells. Which roles in NHS Scotland, social work and education might be cut if enough of a storm is whiped up against state interference into our childrens lives.

It’s this level of hyperbole which I expect from the Corporate Gutter Media. This legislation does NO SUCH THING, as I am sure you would know if you had read the legislation and the background research.

The main organisations whose principle aim is the protection of children agree with it. I would rather take their opinion and advice that the rabbid Unionist political posturers or a biased Media

Not having any children of my own I have to admit I haven’t paid the greatest amount of attention to the “named person” scheme, but AIUI the aim is to avoid things like”Baby P” occurring where social services, the school, the police, the NHS (and any other organisations the child interacts with) each have a piece of the pictures but no-one has the entire picture?

In which case, there’s nothing new to see other than the fact that any and all reports will be directed to a single individual who can thus see the entire picture?

Actually this campaign against the named person scheme, makes me very angry indeed. This is pure politics, make no mistake, of the gutter variety.

This scheme has already been trialled with success. All the major children’s and welfare charities support it, and it has been legally tested to the nth degree, including at the court of session (Scotland’s highest court) in Edinburgh. It is a fine sound policy aimed squarely at protecting children, no more, no less.

Shame on the Tories for this mendacious campaign, but even greater shame on those so-called’ Christians, who appear to use their cloak of religious pseudo respectability to hide their own petty, politically motivated, and frankly shameful opposition to this policy.

This is NOT an intrusive spy scheme, and those who suggest it is, are bare faced liars of the very, very lowest kind.

I don’t have any children so don’t really have a vested interest in the Named Person scheme however it’s an interesting piece of legislation so I did a little reading up on it.

Honestly though I can see both sides in this argument, and to be truthful I don’t think it is a brilliantly written piece of legislation. I would say that the whole issue of “Well-being’ hasn’t been brilliantly defined and could be open to abuse and I also think that perhaps long term this is something that could easily be lost when the next ‘initiative’ comes along. I also am not sure that I think teachers should be involved in this, but that I suppose is more of a personal gripe with Education being increasingly confused with childcare than a real objection to the legislation.

On the plus side if the scheme is properly resourced and all NP’s and parents receive plenty of support and information and roles and boundaries are clearly defined for NP’s and all agencies invest in this scheme then it really could make a difference to child welfare in Scotland, which really should be the primary concern of everyone involved.

The one thing that I think the Scottish Government has gotten completely wrong however is the way they have publicized and informed the public over the Named Person scheme. There hasn’t been nearly enough good information put out and I’m afraid that I don’t think ‘but all the child welfare agencies like it’ is nearly good enough as a response to the genuine concerns that a lot of people have. The bottom line is NP will only work if parents, agencies and professionals work together, and at present they all seem to be talking at each other rather than listening and communicating.

Why anyone would be against the named person policy baffles me. The protection of children should be given our highest priority.

I have highlighted many times links to the ongoing CSA enquiry and the many cover ups over the years. One such enquiry is being held here is Scotland. Perhaps if this legislation had been available before now the victims of abuse would have been spared.

Here is Mike Russell’s statement debunking the nonsense written by fools.

I think most people here will agree that you are unlikely to get anything truthful or sensible on this matter from the Mail. However, the fact that the Mail dislikes something and uses it to bash the SNP, doesn’t make it good. You can be pro-Indy and an SNP voter and have some serious reservations about this legislation. For a discussion of some reasonable concerns, see, for example, Macwhirter’s recent column in the Hearld.

I taught in Glasgow schools for 17 years until my retirement and in almost all instances where a pupil had to be referred to Guidance/Pastoral Care because of a change in behaviour was because of family illness/bereavement.

For example when a parent is worried about a family member their instinct is to protect their child but unfortunately that usually meant the child was excluded from the facts and that worry can manifest itself in other ways out of character for that child.

Most often the child needed reassurance and the parent alerted to the ‘problem’ and can then address it with or without further support.

I was totally against the Named Person scheme until I found 3 or 4 days ago it was voluntary.

The preamble makes it look compuslory. Yes, there’s a Named Person for every child, but parents and children aren’t forced to use them. That in itself if made clear would get a very different result, even with 181 respondents. Most people don’t want a “nanny state”, interfering in our daily lives, but this isn’t it.

The danger of the single woman and the threat she poses to civilisation is an ancient narrative

The rightwing press and politicians have pondered the burning of Poundland and delivered their verdict. They have found the cause of chaos, and will punish the guilty for shaking the foundations of Footlocker. Who brought us here, to this terrible place? Single mothers, yah.

The rhetoric is inspired by The Exorcist. In the Daily Mail Melanie Phillips wrote: “Most of these children come from lone-mother households … Successive generations are being brought up only by mothers, through whose houses pass transitory males by whom these women have yet more children.” This is a scene of sexuality depravity.”

SNP member and long term supporter, but I am deeply opposed to the named person scheme. I am neither right-wing nor a rabid Christian (being atheist), but I really wish people would look into the implications of this properly, instead of dismissing the objections as just another “SNP bad” story (which makes you sound just as bad – automatically opposing something based on who it’s coming from, instead of looking into it).

Opposition to this scheme and all the data harvesting has been going on for some time – it is just convenient that in the run up to the elections the papers have seized an ideal opportunity for an SNP Bad story – they conveniently ignored it for long enough.

On peper it sounds like a harmless piece of legislation, but the implications are huge. Have a real look at how parents and their child’s “wellbeing” will now be assessed. I have heard so many stories from the pilot schemes of parents and families being harrassed by over-zealous “named persons”.

Ironically this will do nothing to help overworked & understaffed social work depts, instead now every child is deemed automatically at risk until proven otherwise, instead of focusing resources on those who actually need them. It just provides a convenient “named person” scapegoat for when it all goes wrong.

To those who say “well, if you’re a good parent you’ve got nothing to fear or hide”, “if it saves one child?”; it’s the same argument against ID cards and the govt surveillance proposals. So why because it’s the SNP is it suddenly OK? It’s the principle behind it which is wrong.

Apart from the numbers, I knew this was squidgy when I read that the poll was commissioned by the Christian Institute part of the No2NP campaign group. (I buy the Daily whatsit and the National – one for a laugh and the other to get nearer the truth).

Maybe if this system had been running poor Bailey Gwynne would still be with us.

@nana
That piece from Russell still doesn’t cut it. “The named person role absolutely does not supplant or replace parental concern, love, affection, support, responsibility or guidance.”

still doesn’t make the point that it’s voluntary. To make it more clear to those like me that don’t like a “nanny state”, those many like me who object to being penalised or even my own children put MORE at risk by such a scheme because of the minority, I would need something like:

“If parents and children don’t want to have any contact at all with the Named Person, THEY DON’T HAVE TO“.

I think that’s correct, but because even having read up I still haven’t seen that unequivocal statement, I’m not completely sure.

We were quite paranoid with our kids, I did random checks on regular out of house activities and took action twice, probably unneccesasary, and for baby-sitters we only ever used my wife’s sisters, or one baby-sitter when away in Holland recommended by friends who we interviewed in her own house, with her parents present. She was a treasure.

Mmmm. I wonder if this system, had it been in place in the past, would have flushed out the Savilles of this world, earlier in their child molesting “careers”?

The darkness and abuse that some children have to put up with is intolerable. If this proposal helps lift them out of harms way, then let’s have it ASAP and to hell with the Daily Mail and its championship of “family life”.

After all, they are usually keen to tell us “if you’ve nothing to hide, you’ve nothing to fear”. So what’s different about this DM? Oops, do forgive me, I forgot, it’s not to do with child protection it’s to do with the usual bleat…..SNP baaad

Far far better having a named person a sort of extra friend for child support to the child and its parents than all the Pedophile rings that are all around South of the Border especially when the house of Parliament sweep all there under the carpet.
Anything that we do for the benefit of us Scots is bound to be hammered by the English controlled GUTTER PRESS the goes for all Newspapers except one The National.
Vote SNP

It’s a lovely early spring day where we are. My everlovin’ and I are enjoying quality time together.

You see we no longer have youngsters under our feet, needing clothed, educated, reared, and most of all love and respected.

It is our turn, as I keep reminding everybody. (Aye, so he thinks: Mrs C.)

Not all homes are/were like that.

Some with whom I pass my leisure time, had fathers who summarily beat them as a ‘normal’ punishment, or who were drinkers, and kept the family in constant penury because of their vices, or mothers who were ‘bingo addicts’, or less than diligent in matters of cleanliness, housework and so on, (I know the foregoing is gender stereotypical, but this was the norm 40/50 years ago).

Most seem to have ‘come out the other end’ as functioning hard working adults, and seem to have used their own harsh childhoods as a spur to make sure that their kids were better treated that they were.

I am aware of the ‘vicious cycle’ syndrome, the abused becomes an abuser, and Lord knows, I witness plenty of this on a Saturday night; young men and women, too young, out of their heads on drugs and drink, as well as many forty and fifty-somethings the worse for wear and spoiling for a fight.

It is argued that the destruction of our industries, manufacturing, and frankly hope for the future (q.v., McCrone), coupled with rise and rise of the corner shop Off Sales, and chip shop, right next to the betting shop, beside the charity shop, and the ATM machine that charges the poor £2.00 to get their money out, and the whole wretched Desolation Row that is prevalent in city life in Scotland’s erstwhile Industrial complexes, and poverty, cheap booze, Drugs R Us, and cheaper than fags, oblivion, is today’s real world for too many of our citizens and families.

Of course this nasty little Imperialist English Establishment Rag is going to print junk like this.

They covered up paedophile Lords, MP’s and Government Ministers for decades, if not centuries.

As I say, we personally have no direct involvement in the welfare of kids these days.

But given the ‘keep them poor, drunk, and ignorant’ policies of Labour Councils over the past 4 decades, I can see nothing but positives in investing more time , money, and expertise, in protecting at risk children.

I have no doubts you were a great parent, but until we get to the stage where every parent is doing what they should, the state has a role to play in preventing and limiting harm, to every child.

There are times when very good parents need some support, bullying, bereavement, dyslexia, physical accidents, unemployment.

Wouldn’t any caring parent want a call to say I’ve noticed your child falling asleep in class, or crying in class? It can be as minor as that, or as serious as it gets. If the parent steps up, and child is restored – drama over.

However, many of us know, it’s not that simple.

If one child falls through the net, it’s one too many.

Good parents have to stop saying, nanny state, snooping etc., because it’s not about them. It’s about innocent children that need someone looking out for them.

I think we better get the scope of the problem into some perspective here rather than focusing on English paedophile in the Commons or the Lords.

Research only a few years ago revealed that in the Greater East of Glasgow area, one girl in five would experience sexual abuse before 14 years of age. I am pretty sure other similar areas would return similar figures.

Just in from an afternoon canvassing, and going out again shortly.
With this message for the M.S.M. Your lies ain’t working. Locally, support for the S, N, P running even higher than at the same time last year, So there, put that in your pipe and smoke it.

@Valerie
The point of my first posting was that as a responsible parent, one of the 95% – 99% who are, my duty was to safeguard my children as much as possible, while letting them develop, and if this Act introduces another risk for my child, a Named Person who has the right let’s say to force them into a room unaccompanied and subject them to sexual or other abuse, then I’m dead against it.

Sorry to be so brutal but it seems I have to be to get my point across.

We also need teachers to spot those children who are young carers because they need support both in their caring role & so that they don’t lose out on their education. Too many children sip through the net because no-one noticed the frequent absences, falling asleep in class, unkempt appearance etc or just put it down to them not being interested in school or just lazy.

There’s umpteen thousands of invisible young carers throughout the UK-no-one knows the true figure but support is there for them if they can be identified.

The Care Act 2014 requires that social workers refer young carers to support services but I’m not sure that it’s working that well after almost a year in operation in England.

Do you think your child would tell you anyway? I have dealt with hundreds of adult a ,abused in childhood ,who told nobody. They felt it would create problems with their parents. This legislation is not about your parenting skills. It is offering another outlet for a VERY,VERY real problem for young people.

The question on that poll must have been one of the longest I have seen. You would be exhausted reading it before you respond.

o/t Perhaps they should bring in an intelligence test for voters. At the pensioners club today one man said to me, (he had watched the Ireland Celebrations yesterday), ‘I didn’t know that Ireland had an Army… and an Air Force too…..’ I made it a treble when I said they also had a Navy.

This ‘named person’ is already unofficially in place. Every teacher is trained to be observant and has a duty of care to their pupils, in that , if they think a child is being neglected/abused etc, they MUST report this to their line manager (the Head Teacher) who then reports to Social Work. The same is true of many volunteers who work with children and young people. They undergo training which also emphasises their duty of care and that they, too, must report anything they see as neglect/abuse to Social Work.
What the Scottish Government is doing is merely formalising what is already there.

I will just pose this question:
When do lies and misinformation by the mainstream media cross the line and become an abuse of the democratic process, in fact more than just abuse, become foot soldiers for the overthrow of the democratic process and become the agents of the new dictatorship, for despots to rise the first thing that must go is the truth;

Excerpts from some articles I read today…

“The mass media that pervades the UK and other countries is holding back human cultural evolution. Most news is unchecked, and most of it derives from commercial public-relations departments, even in quality newspapers. Entire social panics and worries have been founded on nothing more than newspaper exaggeration. Politics and democracy itself is endangered by the mass delusion fostered by some papers, as politicians are pressurized into taking measures that don’t make sense, because the populace has been misled by popular tabloids.”

“The warnings of media students about the bias of Murdoch’s news outlets are longstanding, and in the USA, a University study from 2011 found that those who watched Murdoch’s Fox News channel were less knowledgeable about current events even than those who watched no news at all”
Above quotes from Vexen Crabtree

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”
Joseph Goebbelshttp://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/Holocaust/goebbelslie

“News is not just a product: the press is the fourth estate, a pillar of the polity. Journalists investigate and criticize governments, thus helping voters decide whether to keep them or sack them. Autocracies can function perfectly well without news, but democracies cannot. Will the death of the daily newspaper […] damage democracy?”

You’re interfering in the way the Media runs Scotland Stuart
They’ll be printing the “TRUTH” about you next and then rephrasing it in a teeny weeny little apology where nobody will ever see it but by then you will have been found

GUILTY!!!!
of being Sturgeons Cybernat General from his hideaway lair in BATH

Which is not even near Scotland and is far away so makes it even WORSER you Devil worshiping Tractor and N word Sympathiser

It’s pretty simple. If the Named Person has cause evidence for concern, then the parents can cooperate. If the cause for concern is major and the parents don’t want to cooperate, a Social Worker will be called in to discuss severity, and if appropriate, go to the Sheriff for a court order.

That’s what happens now, and its what will happen, post legislation. Plenty of parents are in front of the Children’s Panel, and object strongly, but I don’t give a shit, when their child is at risk.

The NP hysteria being cooked up by the far-right is typical: it drowns out any reasonable criticisms of the NP in a tide of petulant screams of HANS ORF AH FAHMLEEZ & hyperbolic accusations of snooping.

So, I thought it would be helpful to collect a few quotes from supporters of the Named Person service, as there is a lot of misinformation about:

Groups like the NSPCC, Save the Children, Children 1st, and so forth were involved in consultations, as were MSPs from multiple parties, and actively shaped the resulting Children & Young People (Scotland) Bill.

Also, let it not be forgotten that not a single MSP voted against the Children & Young People (Scotland) Bill. The Tories merely abstained. Labour, Lib Dems, Greens, independents – all voted with the SNP. Which makes criticisms from people like Ken McIntosh & Willie Rennie all the more nauseating, given that they voted for it.

I have no doubts you were a great parent, but until we get to the stage where every parent is doing what they should, the state has a role to play in preventing and limiting harm, to every child.

And who is going to protect people from the state? There’s a long, sad history of children and families harmed by overzealous accusations of state-backed do-gooders. People worry about this sort of legislation because there are zealots out there are who say things like “until we get to the stage where every parent is doing what they should”.

@Valerie
I’m sure in 99% or even 99.9% of the cases there’d be no problem, my daughter is a teacher. If it’s voluntary I would have done some background checks of my own, sussed out the suggested “Named Person”, and encouraged the kids to go to them if there was any problem they didn’t want to discuss with us. In fact with a son I suggested someone for that very reason, when he was older.

I’m talking about it being compulsory, rather than voluntary, and I repeat what I said, the State should not force otherwise safe children, into situations where they might be in more danger, no matter how small.

All the Act needs is a proper secion on the “Rights of the Child”, e.g. to refuse to have contact with a Named Person attempting to act in that capacity, or to be able to have that person changed. And similar for the parents.

GIRFEC operates without the Named Person, with safeguards in palce the NP scheme is a good one – one single popint of contact.

On 21st March the First Minister faced an audience of young Scots. An open Q & A session with no questions barred. Many were pleased with the NP system & there were major concerns from them about bullying & child protection.

Some were brave enough to speak openly about their own situations. The consensus was that NP was to be welcomed.

I have been a keen reader and sometime commenter on WOS for several years.

My admiration for the effort put in and the quality of the articles by Rev Stu is boundless.

Additionally I cannot praise too highly the quality of the input from those who comment (apart from the trolls).

The combination of the articles and comments show that with Stu and those who comment we have at the disposal of the Campaign For Independence a tremendous asset which I feel could be further exploited in the Campaign.

The following is a proposal which could be either an add-on facility to WOS or a separate associated web site:-

As a means of producing possible policies to be followed by The Scottish Government using only its current powers or as policies for an Independent Government which could be used as campaign tools when Ref2 comes along allow individuals to submit detailed policy suggestions or just bare suggestions which could be built on.

I accept that Stu is kept very busy but submitted suggestions would have to be subject to a degree of moderation.

Once a submission has been made (preferably as a Word Document)and moderated it would be classified and indexed in either a separate part of WOS using the r.h. side of the screen as per the current clickable links to other sites.

Anybody interested could then join in with their own views on the submission debating the merits and demerits of the proposal hopefully in a constructive manner.

After a while the original submission would be amended to include any relevant changes and additions with the aim of arriving at a policy which could be submitted to government for consideration. I would suggest that a submission should be kept up and available for comment for 6 months.

We already have the SG Petitions Facility and The SNP recently invited suggestions but severely limited the length thereof and they had to be submitted directly and not as a Word Document..

Neither of these provides a facility where the man in the street can join in an on-line debate on an individual policy proposal and I would suggest that what I propose above would be a step in the direction of citizens producing policy instead of just politicians and think tanks.

While WOS and those who comment thereon do a magnificent job of demolishing the antics of The Guys In The Black Hats we have in the form of Rev STU and the legion of WOS followers a massive reservoir of informed individuals who must have in the back of their minds ideas to put forward which would make Scotland a better place both now and after Independence has been won. Let us tap and exploit this vast reservoir of talent.

named person sounds like a bad idea. Less government tends to be better than more and it is usually cheaper. During these times of austerity it is hard to justify this scheme when health visitors are already accesible to any parent or child who has a question to ask.

The problem with the SNP is that they’re nice, and good, and well-meaning. But they don’t think outside those their legislation is designed for, they don’t look at the people who don’t need it. The look at a problem they think needs solving, and don’t look at problems they can create by the “solution”. They’re too nice, too good, too well-meaning.

I blame it on the LibDems. They used to be there for such as Civil Liberties, then they got to chasing after Cabinet posts at Westminster instead, power-grabbing. And the lot in Scotland got to hate the SNP.

The Liberals stopped being the Liberals, that we could all take for granted because they would speak up for – us. Even if people like me didn’t ever vote for them.

Maybe I should just cut and paste from your hysterical post about exposure to paedos, and tell you you how great you are?

Would that help, or make you feel better?

It’s hellish that I’m focused on the ‘ at risk’ children, and I’m not taking into account the clairvoyance of professionals, where they could just pinpoint the kids of the 5% that will need support at some unknown point over their school life.

Meanwhile, one of the (alleged) biggest and incomprehensibly vile paedophile rings consisting of Westminster MPs (allegedly), Lords (allegedly), connections to royalty (allegedly), visiting foreign dignitaries (allegedly), MI5 and MI6 operatives all the way to the top (allegedly), judiciary (allegedly), police officers and commanders (allegedly), top military brass (allegedly), lawmakers from many fields (allegedly), celebrities from the world of entertainment (allegedly) and various sundry others (allegedly) is on its way to being the beneficiary of an investigation that will find against the complainants for being ‘untrustworthy’ and ‘prone to story-telling’ and other such terms, and will, in due course be found ‘not guilty’.

It is an utter fucking disgrace. All those dirty monstrous bastards will just continue on, unhindered and without a care in the world, free to go on living as they choose.

Some of the most unimaginable crimes were perpetrated against children in various addresses in London (allegedly) and in other parts of the UK (allegedly). Not only rape, but torture and murder, done to satisfy the sexual depravities of the criminals. The bodies of those murdered during the sex crimes were disposed of. Others were murdered to stop them exposing the criminality. Others have taken their own lives. Survivors have been left traumatised and mentally damaged.

And those that find the courage to blow the whistle on this most heinous of crimes are demonised and derided as liars and nutters. Yet others stay silent because they know they will receive the same level of derision.

And the criminals will die-off one by one, never to face the justice they so very much deserve, FFS.

And then here we have the likes of the far-rightwing Daily Mail lying and pissing in their pants about the fucking audacity of the SNP and the Scottish Government to even think about introducing the “named person” child-protection legislation….

Meanwhile, there are raped, tortured and murdered children lying in unmarked graves dumped there by monsters of the type we are led to believe we are better together with……. (allegedly).

Do the children have “At Risk” / “Not at Risk” labels on their foreheads?

This is merely formalising what is already being done informally all over the country and has been for generations.

“Hey Mary. Keep an eye on the weans while I nip oot tae the shoaps, will yae?”

“Aye, nae borra.”

Mary – Named Person. God Parent – Named Person. Social Worker – Named Person. CommEd Worker – Named Person. Head Teacher – Named Person. It’s a collective responsibility we’ve had in place for yonks but we know from experience that some kids can fall through the cracks because a particular kid’s issue(s) may have been handled perhaps by multiple agencies, “So-and-so will handle it.” But so-and-so didn’t bother their arse or was otherwise busy dealing with other cases.

The Named Person will go some way to ensuring no more kids fall through the cracks. It won’t be perfect but I reckon it’s better than the ‘no-ma-joab’ disarray that can sometimes arise between various well-meaning people/agencies.

And, despite the protests, no parent will be compelled to name anyone as the Named Person.

Interesting to read the figures from the poll to the question
” How much responsibility for the welfare of children should the following people have, where 1 is no responsibility, and 10 is maximum responsibility”
Teachers, head teachers, midwives, nurses, health visitors, social workers,and parents.

Leaving out parents which obviously came out top,
without fail, every single category had an overwhelming majority of people who thought they should have some degree of responsibility ( 6 and above).

The editor of a newspaper decides on what is to be the main story of the day, or what issues his paper should follow that will make up an article later.

At what point did Alan Rodin, political editor, suddenly decide there existed overwhelming public protest to turn the issue into a national debate?

A flaky poll composed by a small partisan group doesn’t fit anybody’s criteria of incontrovertible proof.

“Two-thirds of Scots” against the policy? When? How did they voice that disagreement? No one asked me. No one came down my street with a clipboard, knocking on doors to ask relevant questions. No one phoned.

Was anybody aware the policy was controversial?

We are subjected to another right-wing press concocted campaign to discredit an elected government. I’ve met these bastards. They talk openly of killing respect for the SNP. They denounce, and swagger, and hide behind their flimsy rationale as a ‘people’s paper. They hate the SNP.

But what is it that compels them to hate a huge section of society? Why bend truth, and fake argument?

Interesting that it takes the right wing press to finally get a debate going about this subject. I’ve been writing about it for eighteen months and have been surprised that so few SNP members – and others – have actually read the documentation, as opposed to the headlines.

I’m an atheist, left winger, yesser and SNP voter. I have four children and I’m a lecturer. Both professionally and personally, I’m against the Named Person legislation. It’s the sole reason I haven’t – and won’t – join the SNP.

The Named Person is only voluntary if you have to ask for one to be appointed. If it is imposed,it becomes a state guardian. Take a look at the legislation and the guidelines for professionals: a parent who is non compliant – as I will be – will raise their child’s ‘at risk’ profile. Saying ‘no thanks’ raises a red flag. With the legislation in it’s current form, parents have nowhere to go.

The language surrounding this issue is interesting. One thing the MSM has managed to do is raise hysteria surrounding child protection. Who would be against this legislation that, after all, is only trying to protect innocent children?

Well me, for one. A few quick reasons:

The state works for us and they shouldn’t have a hand that reaches into family life.

The new legislation shifts concern from ‘welfare’ to ‘well-being’. A semantic and legislative minefield just waiting to blow up.

You don’t find a needle in a haystack by adding more hay and the addition of thousands of children onto professional workloads may cause real cases – where welfare is an issue – to be overlooked.

Professionals are not infallible – indeed, from personal experience, some are downright ill informed.

And all this before we even touch on the data protection issues.

I’m not SNPBAD and I want to see an SNP majority returned in May. It’s just that in this case I believe they’re misguided and I think they know it. Whatever some daft poll says, anecdotally I know there are many who are unhappy with this legislation and leaving it in its current form supplies an open goal for critics.

I’d be happy to write more about this for Wings. If nothing else, hearing the other side of the argument might tease out some of these complexities.

Skooschase well said sir I agree with every word you said like the children you refer to the truth will be hidden in an unmarked grave ., we can only hope that some brave heart will come forward to expose the truth and bring justice to the innocents who were murdered and abused May gods curse be on the so far unexposed guilty parties

The parents of a child who was concussed by another youngster complained to a Green Councillor nothing was done, They complained to a Labour MP doing was done. The youngster went on to kill. Would a named person have been more responsible. Or would the Daily Mail rather it was sweep under the carpet or kept secret by Westminster MP’s. Abuse of vulnerable youngster was covered up by Westminster MP’s. Hague and Ken Clarke kept abuse by Janner, Cyril Smith and other MP’s secret..They should be charged. Thatcher said, ‘Boys will be boys’, when told of abuse. It just beggars belief.

Yet people are complaining about a ‘named person’ to stop children suffering. If it helps one child it is worth it.

“Take a look at the legislation and the guidelines for professionals: a parent who is non compliant – as I will be – will raise their child’s ‘at risk’ profile. Saying ‘no thanks’ raises a red flag. With the legislation in it’s current form, parents have nowhere to go.”

I think that’s a fear mongers tacit Lynn.

You make it seem as if we go through this life “unknown” to the state and this is current scheme is some kind of appalling and out of the blue aberration to our invisibility, which is complete and utter claptrap.,

As soon as your born you’re assessed medically, as a toddler at nursery, academically from the moment you start school, through out school, college or uni, at work employer’s are watching you, the cops are, your medical records, all businesses are watching you, the dole office if your unemployed, your bank certainly is, over drafts, your mortgage lender, the tax man, aliens, travel abroad, the states you go to know about it, and on and on it goes.

So why you’re freaked out by a scheme clearly intended to at least try and tackle serious societal problems, is very illogical.

A report of this poll was also in today’s Herald but for once they actually gave the numbers behind the percentages and ended the article by pointing out that a survey carried out in Scotland had shown majority support for the Act.

Since 2005 there has been an interagency framework for working with children called Getting It Right For Every Child, which every local authority area in Scotland was expected to adopt. The leading lights were Highland but not every authority were as progressive, so after many attempts, initiatives, banging of heads off Strategy documents, the SG decided to incorporate GIRFEC into the 2014 Act – along with lots of other legislation. The rights of the child come under the 1995 legislation which is how Scotland complies with UNCRC.

If local authorities had adopted GIRFEC after 2005 Named Person would not be an issue because children would already have one. Some children will already have one under GIRFEC.

Named Person is not a Stasi Spy. They are someone who puts the “welfare of your child as paramount” (paraphrase 1995 Act)

One thing for sure no child abuse would be covered up by an SNP Government. The ‘named person’ scheme is to stop children suffering. The Dunblane tragedy is under a 100 years cover up rule. To protect politicians? The BBC Saville cover up. The Chilcot Report 5 years late.

I live in Highland. Some of the initial trialling of the system was done here and it has been in place for quite a while. The Named Person changes depending on the age of the child, depending on age. That person is not appointed per se, it is a function of their job.

I have spoken to several people who work with the system – medical, teaching and social services. The general consensus is that it is as a pretty decent system. It covers a wide range from a child with ongoing special medical needs to a one time event like a bereavement – and lots of things in between.

They are usually Named Person for a lot of children in their locality. They are busy people. They do not go looking for extra work as they have plenty to do with dealing with the ones that currently have needs at any one time, and they keep an general eye on the others for any developing problems.

I understand that it has resulted in reduced work for Social Services because things are mostly now set up right at the beginning and many problems that arise are caught early on before they become crises.

The press do not want to know about a system that is not a problem and since they are anti-SNP, there is no way they are going to give one iota of publicity to help people understand how it works and made the best use of it.

Oh and for the person who was worried about children’s rights not being spelled out – I would suggest it isn’t here because this act is about the services children have rights to, and the government duty to provide. Acts of parliament and legislation is long winded enough expanding them to areas that are covered elsewhere.

A very valid point. There is reams of research on how not getting some, often simple, support in childhood, can just continue to roll up, and magnify into a person’s later years, affecting all sorts of life chances.

One very common issue. Alcoholic parent(s). Children are fiercely loyal, or too frightened to articulate how they are struggling. This type of case quite often manifests as truancy.

That child deserves every single piece of help available, and its not exaggerating to say, their life may be saved.

The issues are myriad and complex.

I would never compromise on child protection, but there are too many grinding their own axes, that would.

For those interested, Taranaich at 5.53pm has posted an extensive collection of quotes, on his Blog, from large and reputable organisations, commenting on their support for NP.

The one thing you can guarantee is that the moment there is an egregious case of child neglect the Daily Wail is on its high horse screaming for the head of some luckless social worker whose case load the child was missed on.

The Wail wants its cake and eat it. No child should be missed but no one should be looking.

The prime movers in much of the agitation about the NP are religious groups – not an area that has covered itself in glory on this front in the last 50 or more years.

Then again the alleged amount of thuggery and buggery that goes on in boarding schools might just fall foul of this kind of interference. Obviously it’s character forming. It’s just that the kinds of character it forms might be in the Osborne, Cameron, Johnstone ilk.

The one lesson that those on the Better Together side of the debate took from the Referendum is that you can win when you LIE ……. It’s a constant stream now and as Hitlers mate worked out during WW2 …. The Bigger the Lie The Better…..

I am not sure that this will prove to be either an effective or a popular policy. Yes it is well intentioned but wait for the fall out when it delivers erroneous risk assessments on parents, guardians, their relationship circles, their economic and social status and much more. This formalised system will become a veritable Poll Tax for the SG and the party that promoted it.

I met a lass when I was in my teens who was from a very wealthy family. She was pretty, clever, artistic and had an extraordinary imagination – she invented all sorts of pasts for herself.

Her two sisters went for nothing.

They had lavish birthday parties, she was not allowed to attend and had to stay in the nursery with her nanny. Outings, holidays, visiting friends, all the same. She was never seen in public with her parents.

Yes, she went to an expensive boarding school but a different one from her sisters. Her parents never visited the school.

What was her heinous crime?

She was born with infantile eczema. Which not unsurprisingly became nervous eczema.

Last I heard of her, some 40 years ago, she no longer had eczema but was sick, a junkie, reclusive and living in a squat on her own. She was not expected to live much longer.

Shame there wasn’t a Named Person for her but the ‘polite’ circles her parents moved in never questioned it and did nothing.

In addition to my comments earlier, a couple of other things to think about, regarding how ill thought through this legislation is.

The legislation states that the NP is likely to be a health visitor if the child is under five, or a school/head/guidance teacher if the child is at school.

Firstly, I lecture in FE and am often teaching 15-18 year olds. There has been no comment from the government regarding who will take the NP role in FE. None. No training has been provided. Most staff I work with have never heard of it. Those that I have spoken too are fairly incredulous that this is being brought in in August, yet there is nothing in place.

Secondly, the NP is to be foisted on all children from birth to 18. It is feasible therefore for a married couple with a child, each to have their own Named Person. Three named people for one family.

More absurdly, it is possible for a someone signing up for the armed forces to have a Named Person too. I’d love to be a fly on the wall as the Named Person fills in the form regarding the ‘well-being’ of someone about to be trained in warfare.

When I was a child my mother suffered from a serious mental illness, eventually diagnosed as paranoid schizophrenia. My stepfather was much older still struggling with full time farming and in poor physical health. Our only relatives lived many miles away. I was the eldest of three.

Our lives were entirely controlled by my mother’s illness. Things had to get very bad before there was any intervention. On more than one occasion one of us could have died. On many, many occasions I would have loved to have someone trusted to turn to who understood how best to help.
On the one occasion when I did try the Lady Advisor of our secondary school told me to pray.

The effect of growing up like this has resonated not just through our childhood but our adult lives as well. So even if you think yourself to be a good, responsible parent, remember that our mother did too. Think first of all those children from every sort of background who need help.

Parents/parent who have just answered the door to have the police tell them that a child has just been killed in an accident are really not in the best situation to help their other children.

They are having to cope themselves and trying to function normally in order to keep the home ticking over, go to work to put the food on the table etc. whilst not really in a fit state to do any of it.

Certainly in the past, such families who had not had prior contact with social services got absolutely zero support.

I support the NP scheme. Having sat in on school guidance councils hearing teacher, social worker, reporter, guidance staff and youth worker bandy around information about a child with nobody actually taking full responsibility for helping that child, I can easily understand how many serious problems could slip through the net.

It’s shameful that the press misrepresent the issues and the public support for this issue.
WoS on the ball as ever.

It is seldom about abuse, sexual or otherwise but mainly as you suggest. Bereavement or serious family illness when parents find it difficult to cope as you describe.

In my final year of teaching I had a boy in S6 whose family fell into that category. Mum had died of cancer 2 years earlier and the dad fell apart but had to use all his energy to go to work to provide for his family. The boy, eldest of 4, was making sure his siblings got to school and did their homework, etc.

The boy was absent a lot and not doing homework and asked to speak to me at the end of the lesson. Turned out dad was coping better and the bereavement just hit the boy then. I was able to pass him on to Pastoral Care who could get him Bereavement Counselling and any other help he and the family needed.

That is the most common function of a named person. Helping families when disaster strikes.

I have. Or rather my daughter did. And we have a close and normal family without dramas, and we still needed help…

Help given, help gratefully accepted and the “disaster” averted.

So all those whining about “intrusion” and worrying about having your life viewed left right and centre, STFU and worry no more. My daughter, by herself, decided she was no longer in need of any help and that was it.

There is also a phenomenon called “bystander apathy” whereby everyone assumes that someone else is dealing with a problem as they stand by and watch.

The original instance was the murder of Kitty Genovese in New York. It took half an hour for her to die. She screamed for help. People in an apartment block heard the screams and looked out and watched, assuming someone else was calling the police.

I’m 67years of age, when I was a child there was no named anything no help no support just deaf authorities except when it came to dishing out punishments for the benefit of making examples to others my old next door neighbours can recall my screams to this day but there was nothing to be done about it

I still bare the marks on my body from a parent teaching me lessons I refused to learn for my own good and still don’t seem to appreciate the need to “do what you’re told” and many of us will have the same story or similar to tell

Any assistance our children can get to help in their development and or guard against danger before it happens has got to be welcome and to the Naysayers I say this

Who or what do you think you are and what do you believe in
because if you think you’re smarter than everybody else then you’re exactly the kind of people who’s children need protection
Or if you’re the complaining “It husnae been thought oot” brigade, well perhaps nobody should even bother trying then “Idiots” you think it through, you help out they’re your kids or will be

Then there’s the other lot of Nutters the “We hate the SNP so it’s Baad” brigade, well tough shit your kids are going to get the use and access to help whether you like it or not, because you people have no excuse at all, you’re just loaded up with hate for the sake of it

Now I’m not basing my argument just because of something that happened to me when I was a child, because I got over it and grew up,, because there was no other choice
Today there is a choice just stop being an idiot stop screeching SNP Baad because you think you have to please your social circle of idiots and believe me when I tell you,

The SNP are the good guys
or Ive been wrong for 50 years, and I doubt that

Do I take it from your comments, that no one at your teaching establishment has anything to do with student welfare?

No one has trained ing to spot signs of say drug abuse? If students exhibit regular signs of physical abuse, no one is trained to CARE?

If no one in your management has discussed necessary training, what a poor show. Even poorer, if the picture as you paint it, is no one discusses or gives a shit about students welfare.

Someone signing up for the Armed Forces may or may not be used, as a type of Referee, but again, if that young person has never had any issues, it’s an irrelevant fantasy. As you must know, the Army do a lot of their own assessments.

As for two young people under the age of 18, with a baby, having 3 named people, so what? The baby is assigned a health visitor from day 1, and the parents would leave the NP scheme at age 18. Its not conceivable that young couple and child might need, and welcome support?

How many of you were up in arms when Labour tried to introduce ID cards? Or the Tory’s new snooping powers to access all e-mails, web history etc? “Ah, but if it stops a terrorist attack!” they argue, or “if you have nothing to hide then you don’t need to worry!”. But that’s not the point. It’s the principle, and I’m sure many of the people who quite rightly argued against these state invasions of privacy are the very same ones who are now saying “ah but if it saves just one child!”!

I’m actually really disappointed in Stuart and the arguments here. It all reads as blind acceptance of the SNPs proposals, and quite frankly I am beginning to see how some on the “other side” label us as a cult 🙁

No, I’ve not been scaremongered by a Daily Mail report. As I said earlier, there has been opposition to this for years. It’s only now that there is an election looming that the media have chosen to highlight these concerns for their own ulterior motives.

Don’t just blindly accept that it’s ok, or assume that because the right wing press is against it they’re wrong. Look into it properly and join the dots and see where it can lead. On paper it sounds a great idea, but it’s been badly hashed out and leaves the door open for all sorts of abuse by the powers that be, especially if you differ ever so slightly from what is deemed “normal”.

Anyone who has had any experience teaching will know that it’s the parents who need guidance and should be monitored, not the kids. And based on my experience here, I’d say the middle class kids suffer the most at the hands of irresponsible parents. I also blame television to a large extent, radio, and of course the Internet.

Most middle class kids by the age of 12, I’d say at least 75% of them, have been encouraged (by their parents!) to take part in baking. They tend to start off with cupcakes and cookies which inevitably leads on to harder stuff like sponge cakes and dumplings.

By the age of 15, in most cases, they’re irretrievably hooked on cooking. It’s hard to watch the humanity being drained out of children like that, over and over again. And you can do nothing to stop it.

I covered a modern studies class and thought this is my chance, get them talking and thinking about real issues like poverty and conflict, stuff like that. That’s when I realised it’s just pointless. One kid in particular I remember just sat reciting risotto recipes for 2 hours.

What chance do we have of turning them into productive, compassionate human beings when they go home to parents who fill their heads with nonsense about chicken cacciatore and asparagus pie? Then there’s all those TV programs and the Internet — all reinforcing the idea that nothing matters except cooking and cuisine.

On a deeper level, as I understand it, there’s a set of core values in play, key elements of which revolve around health and longevity, making money, and a quiet sort of “fuck you jack, I’m alright” attitude. It’s flagrantly sick and shallow but they somehow dress it up as supremacy and snobbery.

It’s quite bizarre when you analyse it objectively from a distance. Look at all the problems we face in the world — here in Scotland in terms of poverty, drugs, crime etc., and abroad with issues like malnutrition, war, not to mention natural disasters, and so much else — and all these middle class people seem to care about is stuffing their faces.

If any of you need any help and advice in terms of how to spot this sort of thing with your kids, what measures you might take to prevent it, etc., I’m happy to help. In general I’d say use common sense, keep a close eye on them (especially in the kitchen) and check their internet browsing history regularly. Might be worth investing in some software that allows you to block certain websites and I believe most cable TV providers allow you to also block certain TV channels.

I’veNeverSeenBraveheart says:
29 March, 2016 at 12:29 am
How many of you were up in arms when Labour tried to introduce ID cards?

Did they happen?

What problems were ID cards trying to solve?

Brown and Lab couldn’t afford the £12+bn costs for ID cards.

We’ve already got ID on us all time.

And as you know, ID cards were not optional.

“Look into it properly and join the dots and see where it can lead. On paper it sounds a great idea, but it’s been badly hashed out and leaves the door open for all sorts of abuse by the powers that be, especially if you differ ever so slightly from what is deemed “normal”.

What does “all sorts of abuse by the powers that be” mean?

Its less the policy and more these kinds of thick as mince, fact free, sneaky creepy red and blue tory pish, that’s rather a drag.

Opponents seem to view the NP as governmental spying on children, in relation to parents and how they function in the role.

I would view the NP a bit differently. It should also be a mechanism for ensuring that kids thrive in other settings, as well as at home, in schools, after schools groups, scouts, or any other settings where adults are responsible for their care. The NP should act as a sort of advocate, if needed, supporting children and parents.

Majority of parents do a fantastic job in giving their kids the love and care they need, some need a bit of help and support, especially when things are tough. That is how the NP should function, as well as ensuring that children come to no harm, from any adult. Remember, children can suffer at the hands of other children too, by way of bullying, so the NP, would I hope make sure that a child is not suffering in any setting.

It is the legal responsibility of all of us to report any child or adult protection issues, should they be apparent, in fact.

@I’veNeverSeenBraveheart
It seems there are at least 4 or 5 of us opposed in some way to the Act, and from what I see we’re either SNP members or have considered it, we’re all Independence supporters, we don;t think we’re the best dad or mum in the world, none of us are mischief-makers, nor are we trolls, nor SNP baaaad, nor do we think we’re smarter than everybody else, nor do we blindly accept the SNPbad media.

We just have different opinions.

Don’t know about you, but when I do have a different opinion, I don’t intend to STFU either. Never have given in to a bully, don’t intend starting now. It would indeed be a shame if people with contra opinions were forced off Wings – as some have been already, not by the Rev.

It’s also not just an SNP Act, the Bill was passed in 2014 by 101 votes to 16, and had its origins in 2001. Doesn’t make it a sound and well put together Act, with adequate protection for all.

OT
The National have an article about Carmichael and the JRRT. And also one about the Quakers, who are they. The article mentions companies founded by Quakers, but totally neglects to mention IBM “Big Blue” as it used to be known (Tom Watson). The article says despite the simple nature of Quakers they found they were good at making money. I don’t think it’s “despite”, I think it’s “because”. Changed days. Should change back again.

The Army bully, abuse, kill youngsters and then cover it up. There are no proper Inquests. They use the Official Secrets Act to cover up criminal Acts. Illegal invasions.Trauma. Nothing is done about it. How many people were suffering from trauma after 11WW. Suffered from trauma and abused their children. Much abuse goes on within families.

A ‘named person’ means more help can be provided more efficiently. They should be listened to because chikdren were being placed in foster care of known abusers. The kinship payments can keep children within family care (grandparents etc) and are cost effective. A better outcome for the children. Some foster carers do it for the money and are not the best placed for vulnerable children. It can relieve tensions but long term can cause further harm, being transferred indefinitely. A children’s home can provide better care. Many foster carers are brilliant.

In the past some children were taken in by neighbours or friends on informal agreement. They were cared for adequately. Drink and drug abuse means children can be neglected. Taken into care or adopted. Proper total abstinence ‘one chance’ counselling should be available.

Many Doctors receive inadequate training in alcohol/drug abuse, without specialising. It can lead to death. Some Doctors prescribe tranquillisers for alcohol addiction. Instead of proper toal abstinence ‘one chance’ counselling/rehab. People have died because of inadequate treatment. Most drug related deaths are people being prescribed methadone (indefinitely) and taking other substances.

Many publicly funded programmes can advocate ‘drinking a glass of wine with a meal’. Or taking drugs for a ‘ special occasion’ Totally inconceiveable for addictive personalities. People have died because of bad advice or lack of proper treatment. Grampian Health Board is the only Health authority in Scotland which do not provide primary care for drink/drug abuse. It has to be funded privately. They have to fund follow up care which can be much more expensive. Liver transplants etc.

The Mail ‘Stay out of Famiy Life’ which supported illegal invasions, killing innocent people, supports sanctioning people and starving them to death. The cover up and abuse of children by Westminster politicians. Victim blamer. Owned by a Non Dom tax evader. UKIP crook, alcoholic supporter and funder.

It’s not really the SNP who started NP, it hasn’t come from nowhere untested, it is supported by child care professionals, it was voted on unanimously by our elected representatives apart from the tories who had something better to do so didn’t press their buttons.

Big brother it’s not, voluntary IT is, complainants were humiliated in the court of session, show to be tin foil hat wearing nut jobs.

Egged on by their hate promoting vile excuse for a newspaper, the contemptible, scum bum. media who would not know the truth if their lives depended on it!

Now, how is that case against the LabServativeDem child molesters in Westminster coming along?
Oops, forgot, they are too busy with a whole dept., of M15 watching and digging up dirt on the SNP, to bother about it.

Hmm. Obviously even if the number does turn out to be 500 odds, it’s still a tiny, unweighted sample. And it’s subset analysis (useless) and the question stinks.

However, I don’t doubt that people have concerns about names person. I’m weakly in favour but don’t have kids so sort of exclude myself as a valid opinion. It seems, on paper, to be a good idea but I’m not sure about the definitions, and how does it work with reluctant families?

I don’t think we should poo poo the genuine concerns people have, or write them off as nutjobs. These are the people who supporters should be trying to convince, not blindly mock. Let’s not become what the yoons want us to.

Braveheartphony: It all reads as blind acceptance of the SNPs proposals,

Who gives themselves that moniker and thinks it’s not provocative?

If you’ve never seen as much as five minutes of ‘Braveheart’ you must be dead. Either that or you live in a coal cellar without TV, radio, or newspapers.

The ‘named person’ proposal comes from professionals working in the filed. I’m a name person – a godfather, chosen by a friend as the best person to guide his son should his father never be around, or need assistance. Been a convention for generations.

We used to ‘belt’ our kids at school. Some where hit three or four times by that thick leather strap, justice handed out by a one-person jury. Children carried wields up their wrist. Some parents demand the right to hit their kids as a matter of respect. Some use them as sex objects.

If you think children are well cared for, safe, and free of predators or idiot alcoholic parents, well, quite frankly, you’re an idiot.

It has just occurred to me that a facility to convert Stu’s articles (and articles on any of the other pro-indy blogs)with or without comments to pdf format would be a good idea as it would enable us to spread the word either by e-mail to non-believers or to other sites/blogs.

The point of the post is the cynical use of flawed data to demonize a political party. It has turned into a discussion on the rights and wrongs of the named person act. Fair enough we often go off up a side street and generate healthy debate.

There are only three countries in the entire WORLD with worse recorded figures of child abuse than the UK. South Africa, India and Zimbabwe. Think about that.

The legislation wasn’t forced upon Scotland. It was voted in by the majority of the political parties. Shamefully the Tories abstained. On child abuse they abstained!
It was unsuccessfully challenged in court. It’s not the perfect answer but surely we have to do a better job of protecting those that cannot protect themselves.

Do you want your children born into the fourth most abusive country on earth?
The Mail, along with some opposition worthies who voted for this legislation, see this as an opportunity to attack the SNP. The Scottish government try to help children, the newspapers see an opportunity. If they can’t come up with a reasoned argument they magic up some figures. How typically UKOKish of them.

Grouse Beater says:
Who gives themselves that moniker and thinks it’s not provocative?
Well, every time I see your nom de plume I feel so sad for the poor Grouse murdered in their thousands in what is called a blood sport!
I always have the urge to shout “come on the Grouse”
Just Saying 😉

Snap. I made sure to beat heather where no grouse hid. Then again, it’s a good moniker implying I swat right-wing grousers – and beat the stuffing out of them.

‘NeverseenBraveheart’ is a phony; his post cleverly composed to seem as if a disgruntled supporter. If you care about children you don’t couch your argument in party political terms. And if you are a party member you had your chance to debate the policy internally, and vote.

I didn’t think the Braveheart poster was genuine, but deserved a mention for attacking Stuart. Seems to have missed the role of WoS.

What I do see from opponents of the NP, is either not answering the points about child protection, or shouting another version of brainwashed cultist.

For me this is not about SNP, and I’ve made that point several times. Supporters here and elsewhere are very often speaking from personal or professional experience, but that goes for naught against ideology.

I’m sorry but I just want to put it on the record that at least one of us thinks the above makes no sense. Actually this just raised a bunch of new questions for me; i.e. how did you know “where no grouse hid”? Why beat heather at all, whether grouse hid there or not?

Why get involved in social politics? To make sure your side wins the argument. And on grouse moors in your backyard to reduce their kill quota. Next stupid question…PS: The topic is protecting children, not birds.

I’m a “she” actually (not that it matters), and been a long time (if infrequent) commenter, especially round about referendum time if you care to look. Haven’t commented for a long time, but had to add my point of view here.

As to the name, well, I thought it was obvious. The Yoons liked to dismiss us all as being wound up by watching Braveheart (which indeed I have never seen!)and being carried away by a romantic notion. I am not one of those, preferring to use my head not heart.

As to the Named Person being voluntary – if it was, then what would be the point?! Please look into the implications of this. Please do not dismiss me in a disgusting manner as some posters have by saying I must be an abuser if I am against this – really?! That just makes you sound as loony as some ranting Yoon!

Of course we wish abuse didn’t happen, but anyone who thinks this piece of badly thought out legislation is going to somehow stop child abuse, the same as the rent-seekers in the NSPCC have “stopped child abuse” (while making a comfy living for themselves) is sadly deluded.

It’s the principle of the matter. No-one has commented on the fact that GPs will now have to break patient confidence in regard to children with this. Consider for example, a 15 yr old girl going to see her GP for contraception, but her Named Person is her head teacher of the local Catholic school, who must now be informed! I can tell you, if that was me there would be no way I would be going to my GP!

So yeah, thanks for dismissing me as a phoney and a faker. I thought WOS commenters were better than the others 🙁

On a serious note, if the NP legislation is voluntary then it probably doesn’t go far enough. Anyone here can imagine a kid being more comfortable sharing problems with a NP rather than their parents. If my kid has problems that she can’t share with myself or her mother, for whatever reason, I would be very reassured to know that someone else was there to listen and help. No truly caring parent could argue with that.

There’s no comparison to be made here with the attempt to bring in ID cards — the ID card proposals had more to do with the free movement of people in the EU than any big brother nonsense. The reason Britain kept its border controls under Schengen was down to the failure here to bring in ID cards but that’s a whole other subject.

As for Big Brother, he’s watching very closely regardless.

The way the whole NP subject is being deliberately misconstrued and misrepresented in the media is much more interesting than what any of us here think of the policy itself. We should probably be outraged or something, but we are all too used to that sort of deceit to let it bother us any more.

Something that many posters forget,and that allows any type of abuse to take place, is that the concept of protection is a two way street. Although many parents know they will go to great lengths to protect the child, they forget that the converse is also true. The child will endure things to protect the parent from suffering and trauma.

This is why many types of abuse go unchallenged,and come as a total shock to families when it is revealed

I don’t have any problem with the intent of the NP Act, especially given the voluntary nature and the safeguards from the trial run. Doubtless there will be rough edges and mistakes but if ultimately it helps and protects children then it is good.

My misgivings are for the future and how it might be ‘modified’ and ‘improved’ by others. Especially those screaming loudest and hardest at the moment in the likes of the DM (Scotch region edition).

I hope sufficient boilerplate can be constructed to prevent a well meaning act from having unintended consequences and becoming used in nefarious ways to gain intel about parents who may have political, religious or other views that may not be to any future Government’s liking.

Croompenstein – yes, as far as I understand it, a GP will have a duty to inform the Named Person of details relating to the child, i.e. explicitly breaking their oath of confidentiality. This is what I mean by it all being a badly written mess – no-one has considered the full consequences of this.

Friends who are teachers and GPs are deeply uneasy about this.

GrouseBeater – I used to repect your postings. Don’t dismiss someone as “phony” just because they have a different point of view.

Frogesque – exactly! The intent is honorable. In practice, it is unworkable and will make things worse for those families that do need help. You don’t find a needle in a haystack by adding more hay!

I have heard troubling stories from the pilot schemes from families whose faces don’t fit, or who deviate from the “norm”. This whole piece of legislation gives scope for being used in nefarious ways, exactly a whole can of worms as you say.

At the end of the day folks, the article in question is either abysmal journalism or shoddy disinformation. Someone commented recently that Scotland’s democracy is under threat from this sort of crud. I personally agree.

Newspapers only exist in return for the public’s interest in two key areas; scandal & football. Sure, there are titles that print mostly financial news but their circulations are small & appeal to a niche market. (e.g. the FT)

But the mainstream titles are in competition for sleaze. It’s a disappointing reflection of society that newspapers can elevate a daily print run by publishing for example, an exclusive story that hinges on a claim that someone famous has been found out to be shagging someone else in the Maldives while their own husband or wife is battling colon cancer back in dreary Motherwell.

If one of them has big tits, even better. Readers often get a chance to see them too but only after leafing through stories about weight loss surgery disasters, mortgage insurance scams or which colour of blouse Kate Middleton wore when she battled through a puddle in high heels made by someone who used to share a bed pan with a tramp, just to open a care home for sad, old donkeys.

Or that an elected official has chosen to descend the moral high ground & inflate their drinks expense claim after sniffing white powder while a hooker sat on their lap twirling their rugby club tie.

Or a TV personality has been photographed at night in a parked car with someone who’s called “Nigel” at work & “Nigella” when they aren’t.

Manufactured or faux public outrage is nothing new; the Romans built colosseums to partly satisfy lust for rectifying the attitudes & behaviours of uncultured savages & to distract the public from the corruption of the Senate. Here, medieval zealots burned people for having the inexplicable nerve to survive cholera or syphilis.

The right wing media in bankrupt Britain does basically the same thing; coordinate easy attacks on elected officials & famous people to provide a gruesome & repetitive diet of screaming hyperbole so that it might alter the general mood of the nation & maintain the status quo on behalf of the neocon Establishment.

Wings & its readers undermine this process by demolishing the inaccuracies, lies & industrial scale propaganda. This partly explains the frothing hatred of those who dare come here to get a sense of what is really going on; and to find some truth in a tidal wave of puerile gossip written by lazy hacks entirely reliant on AP news wires who have the nerve to claim that they are still journalists.

The effect of Wings & similar independent minded news gathering & comment pages, should not be underestimated. They question the very fabric & modus operandi of the British Establishment while demonstrating that the traditional media no longer entirely owns the mood of the nation or indeed the unflappable ability to alter public opinion in order to protect their own vested interests.

Meanwhile, you can hardly complain about the sorry state of the British print & broadcast news media if you continue to fund it.

Braveheartthingy: “Don’t dismiss someone as “phony” just because they have a different point of view.”

Yes, good advice. I get on like a house on fire with Tories who say they have Scotland’s best interests at heart.

Look, it isn’t a matter if you feel the policy misguided. It’s an established, universal non-issue for people in Scotland. The ‘controversy’ is a wholly concocted MSM news item to knock bits of our elected government.

The idea fundamental ‘Christians’ (the clue’s in ‘mental’)are the most vociferous in condemnation of a scheme to protect children is, quite frankly, enough to tell any intelligent person the policy is a sound one.

I’m disgusted at the nastiness of some of the responses to iveneverseenbraveheart. If we go on like this, always patting each other on the back and reacting furiously to differing viewpoints, the independence movement will wither away into insignificance.

You raise an important point there regarding the plaintiffs in this case, what I can’t work out is why a group or groups operating in England & Wales, who don’t vote in Scotland, could have had anything to do with a piece of legislation in/for Scotland.

You raise an important point there regarding the plaintiffs in this case, what I can’t work out is why a group or groups operating in England & Wales, who don’t vote in Scotland, could have had anything to do with a piece of legislation in/for Scotland.

English votes for English laws.
English Christians for English cruelties.
English charities for corrupt Westminster MPs.

Last time I heard “the master race is entitled to interfere” came from a private security guard at Edinburgh airport with a cockney accent telling an already harassed me why I should move on.

“WifeBeaterThingy” (I can misconstrue names too!) – opposition to this has been kicking about for years before the media (albeit with ulterior motives) picked it up and ran with it.

I am neither right-wing nor Christian, neither are the parents group I am with who are deeply opposed to this.

But you know, carry on in your little paranoid bubble dismissing anyone who shock, horror, doesn’t sing from the same sheet as somehow phoney or a plant. Beginning to see why I haven’t commented here in a long time.

Today’s National has a great cover story regarding the Joseph Rowntree Trust which donated £50,000 to Lying Carmichael to help with his legal costs.
They also paid out £45,000 to Willie Rennie and £36,000 to his boss Tim Farron.
It seems the trust has been taken over by Lib Dems who have ousted the Quaker members of the board and use the funds as a Lib Dem “Honeypot”.
Great piece which I doubt any other papers or the BBC will mention.

The Children and Young People (Scotland) Bill was passed without opposition; with the agreement of all people involved.MSPs had unanimously agreed to back his bill without opposition, with one accord, with one mind, to a man, as one, one and all, each and every one, bar none, without exception, we won’t count the 15 Tories because abstaining means you aren’t arsed either way,

Against, the press, why, Because it sells newspapers. British tabloids sometimes featured 16- and 17-year-old girls as topless models. Samantha Fox, Maria Whittaker, Debee Ashby, and others began their topless modelling careers in The Sun when they were 16, while the Daily Sport was even known to count down the days until it would feature a girl topless on her 16th birthday, as it did with Linsey Dawn McKenzie in 1994.

The article was not about the merits of the legislation. The article was to do with the Daily Mail lies and other deceits. They concocted an attack on the SNP Government on legislation initiated by Labour and Lib Dems.

The endeavour of the legislation is an honest attempt to safeguard children and avoid many recent tragedies where public agencies unwittingly allowed abuse to continue by poor information management.

There is no perfect legislation and statutory interpretation is for the courts and sorting out unintended consequences of legislation is for Amendment Acts.

It is no coincidence that the attack on this legislation is led by fundamentalist Christians and other faith groups.. As a survivor of the savage upbringing they favour I can well understand why they are squeeling.Do not get me wrong I have read the concerns above so let us address these and it would help if the once respected titles such as Scotsman and Herald made sincere critical analysis and not descend to the sewer level of the Daily Mail.

BTW: I’ve never seen Braveheart either. The reason being I’m a Scottish history of independence buff and the motion picture was utter fiction.

See it Robert.

Its drama, not doc. Most countries have tons fictionalised dramatic retellings of their past. It just happens that the UKOK imperial masters brigade totally freaked out at this one, in their Scotland region. BBC Scotland were the most freaked out at the time.

Nice example of England is Britain, from this creep show that also successfully turned Holywood on Scottish democracy

Inaccurate fiction or not Braveheart was one of, perhaps the only ‘movie’ that gave many Scots with no previous education of their own history a starting point with which to reflect on or investigate their actual history.

Whilst many commenters on Wings are steeped in historical factual history many thousands of Scots are still unaware of ‘how we got to where we are’, if Braveheart opens the eyes of just one person as a starting point to understanding the wars that shaped our country and the causes that underlie this unequal union, then it serves a useful and somewhat entertaining function.

Personally, I love Braveheart, it is actually a profound film that deals with the big themes in life: personal and political: betrayal, loyalty, integrity, unfairness and fighting for a just cause. In essence: Standing up to bullies and sacrificing self(the personal) for the sake of those who come after us(the collective).

People who are ashamed of Braveheart are those generally suffering a huge dose o’ the cringe: remedy wise, watch it as a testament to the eternal struggles of all people’s who have been subjugated by the forces of greed and racism, and have had their lands and cultures taken from them by those who think themselves ‘superior’, those bereft of humanity and shielded by their wealth and ‘position’ within their ’empire’ enclaves.

Good films are those that touch upon these enduring decidedly human themes.

Sometimes I hate being a 24/7 carer as I had to bite my lip again today as the Burd creature couldn’t resist a blatant SNP BAD dig as she asked a question well at least I think it was a question about Tax.

I’m guessing I’m pretty much like the vast majority of the population in that I don’t have the time or enthusiasm to look into the pros & cons of this ‘Named Person’ Act.

I’m happy to leave it up to the experts to come to the correct conclusion. It would seem the experts in this field are all happy with the legislation. That’s good enough for me.

I have read the comments on this thread and TBH I really don’t understand what the objections are.

Re historical fiction like Braveheart, Outlander etc. These films are probably not for history buffs but I find that they stimulate my interest in history.
So I would be giving then a big thumbs up!

I’m waiting for my dvd of ‘The Wind That Shakes The Barley’ to arrive and I supect after watching the film I will be doing research into Irish history.

I have downloaded the 1916 Easter Rising RT documentary which Capella posted links to and I am also waiting for the dvd ‘Oranges & Sunshine’
I am pretty busy keeping myself informed so I am going to have to give the ‘Named Person’ Act a miss.

I find I have been giving more & more of these stories a miss it could well be that certain political parties & the media are suffering from the ‘Cry Wolf Syndrome’

Capella thank you for the links to the RT Documentary I did thank you on the other thread but my post (which was quite long) disappeared into cyber space.

For evidence of Groupthink, one need only spend a few minutes trawling the BBC’s website & its occasional comment threads to observe pervasive, jingoistic BritNat propaganda produced on a quite spectacular scale.

Then again, with over £5 billion pounds raised, much of it by threat of criminal prosecution, it can’t be hard to achieve such high levels of polished, convincing looking, evangelical, neocon agitprop.

And who better to act as ambassadors for this propaganda than the teams of over paid, well worn celebrities & luvvies to encourage Britain’s congregation to wear stupid noses while turning a blind eye to its chronic criminality & corruption.

Oh, how London’s foreign newspaper proprietors must look across the Thames with envy at this cosy instrument of finance, haughtily backed by titled cronies inside Westminster.

1. Before the ad hominem clique condemn any poster as a phony perhaps they should try searching for previous postings, and check them out: “Wings Scotland I’veNeverSeenBraveheart”

2. On UseNet regular posters to a group could disagree and vigorously, but when one resorted to ad hominems to try to win their argument, the rest on both sides would round on the poster who used ad hominems and tell them to withdraw them. Perhaps regulars on Wings would like to address the argument, rather than try to discredit the poster.

3. Being against the Act does not mean peopoe don’t care about children, or are abusers, or right-wing, or tory-lovers. During the stages of the Bill, there were several amendments designed to strengthen the Bill and provide more rights for children. The SNP used their Holyrood majority to vote them down. Does that make the SNP child abusers, right-wing or tory lovers – or phony? Well, does it? Why not? I know the answer, do you?

4. Sometimes the person who disagrees with you has actually done their own research. Perhaps they’ve done more than you.

5. Dissent on one issue doesn’t mean dissent on all issues. The SNP Conferences have been full of dissent. Think of the NATO debate back in 2012, that debate being hailed by even the Unionist media as one of the most vigorous and democratic seen at a party conference.

Salmond boost for the Independent, very generous. Just keep asking questions.

Rule Britannia types really love that:D

“Writing like that serves to educate and inform, not merely to administer a lazy adrenaline shot to opinions already formulated. The reader is left with the responsibility of drawing their own conclusions. And they deserve that responsibility.

Going back to the referendum, the public proved, spectacularly, that they were more than capable of processing the complex information which swirled around the independence argument. I’ve fielded tougher questions on the economy from taxi drivers and students than I ever have from any journalist.”

Also, if we had a good fourth estate, as opposed to historic perverts, liars and bullies at the Heil, BBC etc, there’d be no need for WoS.

I’ve had no luck getting an answer to the question I asked at 11:02 pm perhaps you could answer. It’s a serious question I just wish someone would answer… under what circumstance would my family have a named person foisted upon us…

Indeed. No need to attack the poster, no need for ad homs at all. All we need do when there’s a difference of opinion is simply agree to disagree.

Alas, though, the intolerant among us can’t even accept that position and insist that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That’s the real problem–intolerance of difference. It is generally, though not always, a trait of religious zealots. In their minds they are the only ones with the true truth. Such an intolerant mind can never be reasoned with which makes it all the more necessary for us to identify such and simply agree to disagree, then walk away.

It would be obvious if you read the judgement on the legal challenge made to NP, that all overarching legislation, such as Human Rights, Data Protection stands, and will be adhered to in the operation of NP.

Child Protection legislation emanates from 1968, and has been built on, improved, and refined up to the present day.

The judgement from the legal challenge demolishes any notion of infringements to rights, and recognises the thrust is only to provide a more efficient coordination of information, for children that require support.

@Proud Cybernat
Indeed. The problem is that on the one side are the organisations that represent the 5% of children who needed more protection and didn’t get it, and on the other are the 5% who would possibly resent any protection for children, andy interference or intrusion.

Between those two 5% blocks making the argument are the 90% who just want protection for themselves and the normal way of being parents, while being happy there’s extra protection.

Unfortunately if any of the 90% raise a voice on either side, they’re presumed to be one of the 5% at either end of the argument. Well, it isn’t so. Most people aren’t polarised on such issues.

As a parent I am glad that named person legislation is being introduced. At present there is an implied duty of care placed on schools, doctors, health visitors etc. Any of these professionals can raise issues however in practice there is no specific responsibility on an individual outwith the family.

The NP legislation formalises the process and empowers the named person. No more will there be a question of who should raise concerns if (and only if)a problem arises. The named person is a safety net. I doubt they will go looking for issues where none exist but they will be held accountable if an incident occurs and they have missed the signs. To borrow a phrase we will have the best of both worlds.

I need never engage with the named person but should I ever neglect my duties as a parent I anticipate that the NP will engage with the authorities on my children’s behalf. I find this reassuring.

Curious and probably wrong decision from the UN. The Falklands are outside the Argentine 200 nm EEZ – or were.

Perhaps a factor is that the UN Decolonisation Committee is or was dominated by South American and African countries, Peru and Chile srping to mind. They probably had input to this surprising decision.

Off the top of my head I think the Falklands themselves would still have the right to self-determination and a 12 nm territorial waters, but might not get their own up to 200 nm EEZ. Which I guess might make some sense, but in that case the seas around should be International waters, not Argentina’s EEZ.

The next logical step could be for the UK to agree to dropping a claim to the EEZ around the Falklands, in exchange for Argentina dropping any claim to “The Malvinas”. Dispute ended. There will be international pressure for that, probably from the US.

Implications for iScotland – perhaps not. Precedent is one thing, but economic claims are another for EEZ disputes, and even for Territorial Waters, such as in the Black Sea, fishing rights etc.

Read the reports about some of the worst child abuse cases and see how often professionals got it wrong by poor communication …someone thought someone else will pick it up and no one does …if a child is at risk of abuse then every thing should be done to stop it …..dealing with the abuse means we as a society have failed a child ..this is not acceptable we need to ensure it never gets to this stage

@JET JOCKEY
Yes, if Scotland and rUK are both successor states, which is one of the basically three forms of our becoming Independent, the other two being secession or dissolution.

Scotland’s OK with both being successor states, advantages and disadvantages, for rUK there are only really disadvantages.

This, whatever the Unionist media might like to tell us, is what the UK Gov claim to being the Continuing UK was all about, and gives Scotland a huge negotiating advantage. Basically all 3 actual mechanisms don;t make a lot of difference to Scotland, but huge to the rUK.

My take is that after negotiations Scotland would support the rUK claim to being the cUK, but only for a lot of considerations – i.e. concessions. It’s very clear Salmond was very aware of all that, hence his claim of “bluster” from the UK Government. They were indeed, all bluster and no trousers.

mike says:
29 March, 2016 at 4:06 pmAs a parent I am glad that named person legislation is being introduced. At present there is an implied duty of care placed on schools, doctors, health visitors etc. Any of these professionals can raise issues however in practice there is no specific responsibility on an individual outwith the family.
—–

Agreed. The way I see it is teachers and health visitors are already supposed to raise concerns. Would those who see it as interference REALLY want it any other way ?

Imagine a pupil starts coming to school constantly covered in bruises.
Should a teacher do nothing because some parents might get their feelings hurt ?

So the child protection aspect already exists. The main utility of the scheme will be to make it easier for parents who want to use a single point of contact during times of need.

@Onwards
Reluctant to get back into it, but I don’t think one single poster here, not one, has questioned the advantages of a Named Person, a single point of contact, for those that need it, those who are identified through existing mechanisms, but are left short at times because of a lack of co-ordination.

@yes2indyref2.
OK, just caught up on the comments here. What I don’t understand is how putting more child or parent protection into the bill would work in practicality.

Say a child constantly comes to school covered in bruises. And then refuses to speak to a teacher about it because he has that right and his parents have told him not to. Or threatened him not to.
What happens then ?

The way I see it, child protections already exist, and social services can get called in at the moment, regardless if a parent likes it or not.
They don’t have a opt-out in these cases, nor should they.

@Onwards
I think that’s right Onwards. As Valerie says some rights are already protected for parents and children by other legislation, but it should at least be cross-referenced in the Act, probably as part of the preamble. And as I said at the very beginning, the communication from the Scottish Government has been very poor on this, giving alarm where perhaps none is needed.

One might assume that at least some of the reasoning for no reference to other more general legislation is that some might not be devolved which might render the whole of the legislation null and void. Besides which inclusion of such would simply complicate matters when it came to modifying that other legislation.

On the other hand if the voluntary aspect of NP is true then it follows that any attempt from an NP to force themselves into a situation without evidence would break the law. So side effect is to provide protection from them.

Just coming back and reading comments and, wow! I never thought I would have to justify my username, and reasons for watching, or not, Braveheart! (I thought perhaps you would get the joke, but you seem to confirm the Unionist stereotype of Braveheart delusionals 🙁 )

I read here every day, have for years, but stopped commenting because I felt I didn’t really have anything to add. However, I had to add my comments to this post because I wanted it noted that there are some in the SNP who are opposed to this. I expected people to disagree with my viewpoint, but didn’t expect to be immediately jumped on and called a troll, a phoney, my username & reasons for it mocked.

Perhaps some commenters should think next time. I am always recommending this site to people. I love how Stu gets to the nitty gritty and does all the stuff we expect our media to do. I just happen to disagree with him on this. And as I pointed out since my initial post, I am not some numpty swayed by a Daily Mail campaign. As I said, we have been opposing this for years; it’s just convenient for the media at the moment to run with it (and I also acknowledged they had ulterior motives for doing so).

So as I say, I love this site, I especially loved the community feel of it, felt like I knew all the posters even though I’ve never managed along to a meet. So it is sad for me today to see how a poster with an alternate view is immediately jumped upon.

We made the mistake of being a paranoid echo chamber during the referendum. Attitudes like that will not convert those we need to win the next one. The SNP has lost me (and others) as a member over this.

Personally I want independence, so even if there are aspects of SNP policy I disagree with, I tend to look at the big picture.

I am ok with this policy if, on balance, it helps to protect more kids that would otherwise slip through the net.
I’m sure there will be times when named persons get it wrong, err on the side of caution, and a few parents get their feelings hurt.
That’s fine with me. The same as how security cameras might make some more paranoid, but if they help to catch murderers like the guy who killed that Irish student, then its a price worth paying.

It seems like the more powers the Scottish Parliament gets, there are more opportunities for disagreements on day to day issues.
Tax right now for example.
The SNP will have lost members by not taking the Green approach and proposing to screw the rich, even if it drives away investment.
Even if was 100% proven that they would lose tax revenues, some people would disagree simply on the principle itself.

Anyway, Divide and Rule suits the Tories just fine.
The SNP and a second democratic referendum is the only practical way we will get independence.

Ruth’s just a ‘vote whore’, anything for votes, don’t think for a moment that there is a warm blooded beating heart that gives a fuck about our NHS. All she cares about is point scoring, always remember she’s just a branch manager too, she answers to the Tories and is directed by her boss behind the scenes.

Boy, just been reading the long tedious posts by some people on the named person thing. Most is ill informed rubbish, with a few honourable exceptions.

A lot of fuss over nothing, if you ask me. Seems like a good idea, all the major childrens and welfare bodies support it, and the courts have repeatedly said it does NOT infringe anybodies human rights etc..

There is an election looming, hence the sophisticated ‘concern’ trolling going on. Tedious, and we see right through it.

Even the REV writing another article about football, would be better than this (I mean the comments).

We made the mistake of being a paranoid echo chamber during the referendum. Attitudes like that will not convert those we need to win the next one. The SNP has lost me (and others) as a member over this.”

Nasty slice of passive aggression there. Who’s your “We” anyway and why is it paranoia to keep on asking charmers like you to actually substantiate your stuff, which really is paranoid?

@ Ruby
I’ve just watched the final episode of “The Night Manager”. Cracking stuff!
The BBC is annoyed that we non-licence payers can watch stuff on the iPlayer and want to stop that. Tough.
Earlier, I watched RTE youtube videos about James Connolly and the Easter Rising. It is the 100th anniversary after all. It’s also very instructive for our current situation.

@ Capella
The programmes about 1916 seem to have been deleted from the link you gave, so I’m not sure if this is the same programme from BBC Caesar!
(In gàidhlig but with enough english and subtitles).

Available for the next 5 days on iPlayer. The next episode highlights Connelly’s role.

Rennie’s like an episode of jackanory, every time he speaks he comes across as if he’s talking to an audience of children, reading to them in over enunciated tones from a picture book about ‘how things work’…*eye roll*

That’s the thing about ‘Scottish’ Labour, because they stood shoulder to shoulder with the Tories during their ‘Better Together’ campaign, everyone knows they are not interested in standing up for Scotland.

Question for Kezia (or) Ruthie the Tank Commander (or) Silly Willie: if independence has been good for Luxembourg, why do you think it would be so bad for Scotland?

Luxembourg has no oil, natural gas or coal reserves. It has no fishing industry, very little going for it in terms of renewable energy projects, and has no export figures which could even come close to matching what Scotland generates from exports of whisky, salmon, mineral water and the rest, and yet it is known for having one the lowest unemployment rates in Europe and enjoys one of the highest standards of living not only in Europe but among all developed countries.

Luxembourg’s quality of life, natural beauty, rich cultural heritage together with the highest income per capita coupled with a moderate cost of living, are highly appreciated by residents and visitors alike.

So, Scotland, stop listening to the pathetic ramblings of Dugdale, Davidson and Rennie. Get your act together, and take back your independence.

Luxembourg has no oil, natural gas or coal reserves. It has no fishing industry, very little going for it in terms of renewable energy projects, and has no export figures which could even come close to matching what Scotland generates from exports of whisky, salmon, mineral water and the rest, and yet it is known for having one the lowest unemployment rates in Europe and enjoys one of the highest standards of living not only in Europe but among all developed countries.

WoS twitter timeline’s RT’d an OECD chart with Scotland the worst deficit in the OECD and Norway with a massive surplus at the top.

How does one country with a huge oil reserves get to be at the bottom of this table and get monstered for having this OECD deficit?

We let our neighbour run our country into the dirt. Then they Project Fear us BBC style into keeping it that way.

“The OECD’s origins date back to 1960, when 18 European countries plus the United States and Canada joined forces to create an organisation dedicated to economic development. Today, our 34 Member countries span the globe, from North and South America to Europe and Asia-Pacific.”

It’s not about “differing viewpoints”. It’s about people wanting to stand idly by and do nothing to protect abused and vulnerable children, over absurd fantasy objections.

Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.